The NHL is already over-expanded. This only serves to dilute the talent pool further. You want a team in Seattle? Move the (Franking) Coyotes there. Ditto with Quebec. The NHL should be worried about having 30 healthy operating franchises before worrying about expansion.

kodos wrote:The Blues will get savaged by the expansion draft as well. It won't be pretty.

26 of the 28 teams existing in the league at the time of the draft were each allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards. The Atlanta Thrashers and Nashville Predators had their entire rosters protected, as they were the two newest franchises in the league, only being in existence for one and two years respectively.For teams protecting only one goaltender, there was no experience requirement for those left unprotected. For teams protecting two goaltenders, each goaltender left unprotected must have appeared in either 10 NHL games in the 1999–2000 season or 25 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. A goaltender had to be in net for at least 31 minutes in each game for the game to be counted against these totals.At least one defenceman left unprotected by each team had to have appeared in at least 40 games in the 1999–2000 season or 70 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. At least two forwards left unprotected by each team had to have met the same requirements.52 players were chosen in the draft, two from each participating franchise. Only one goaltender or one defenseman could be selected from each franchise. Both the Blue Jackets and the Wild were to use their first 24 selections on three goaltenders, eight defensemen, and thirteen forwards. The final two picks for each team could be any position.

Here's what wiki says about the 2000 expansion draft.

The Blues have so many really good young bubble players, I would worry they would all go poof. Guys like Ian Cole and Jake Allen.

Kreegz2 wrote:The NHL is already over-expanded. This only serves to dilute the talent pool further. You want a team in Seattle? Move the (Frank) Coyotes there. Ditto with Quebec. The NHL should be worried about having 30 healthy operating franchises before worrying about expansion.

kodos wrote:The Blues will get savaged by the expansion draft as well. It won't be pretty.

(Frank), I hadn't even thought of that.

I agree about the Coyotes, but aren't the Blues in pretty rough shape too? If we're going by '30 healthy operating franchises,' the Blues would be one of the first on the chopping block. They're strugga-luggaling.

Kreegz2 wrote:The NHL is already over-expanded. This only serves to dilute the talent pool further. You want a team in Seattle? Move the (Frank) Coyotes there. Ditto with Quebec. The NHL should be worried about having 30 healthy operating franchises before worrying about expansion.

kodos wrote:The Blues will get savaged by the expansion draft as well. It won't be pretty.

(Frank), I hadn't even thought of that.

I agree about the Coyotes, but aren't the Blues in pretty rough shape too? If we're going by '30 healthy operating franchises,' the Blues would be one of the first on the chopping block. They're strugga-luggaling.

Are you out of your (Franking) mind?

First they aren't making a ton because you assholes would rather watch stickball for forty hours or however that (Franking) game lasts. Then You can't stay up till the games even end!!

The blues aren't moving, that has been stated time and again. Just like Hartford, Winnipeg, Atlanta, Atlanta, Quebec, Cleveland, Oakland, Kansas City, you know.

Kreegz2 wrote:The NHL is already over-expanded. This only serves to dilute the talent pool further. You want a team in Seattle? Move the (Frank) Coyotes there. Ditto with Quebec. The NHL should be worried about having 30 healthy operating franchises before worrying about expansion.

kodos wrote:The Blues will get savaged by the expansion draft as well. It won't be pretty.

(Frank), I hadn't even thought of that.

I agree about the Coyotes, but aren't the Blues in pretty rough shape too? If we're going by '30 healthy operating franchises,' the Blues would be one of the first on the chopping block. They're strugga-luggaling.

The Blues aren't the most financially successful team in the league, true, but I still feel like we are far enough away from the chopping block to be worried. Having local ownership who actually care about the team and it's future helps out a lot too, I can't see them selling to anybody who wants to move the team.

The last expansion draft we only lost Scott Pellerin and Jamie McClennan. Not terrible but this time around the Blues are going to have too many assets to protect everybody that they would like. We would undoubtedly be seeing somebody leave who we would have liked to keep.

It would present a good opportunity to dump a bad contract if we happened to have a bad contract. If it was this year I'd be all about leaving Halak available and just let them take him. But who knows what next year will bring. Whoever they draft from us will probably be a future hall of famer and multiple Stanley Cup winner.

Thanks for the explanation Kodos, like I said I'm not old enough to have fully understood previous expansions... And yeah, it looks like we could get boned by those guidelines. I like expansion but in this case the talent is so spread out already, I'd rather see a realignment rather than expansion.

I'm still a little confused though. I'm not sure if they have to protect the young guys. Like, do you have to protect Ty Rattie who has never played a game in the NHL? What about someone like Jaskins, who has played a few games? Do you have to protect Allen if he is on a one-way contract?

Considering this: with the new alignment, there are obviously 16 teams in the east and 14 teams in the west. Even though Bettmen would deny this, you can bet that this is by design, to facilitate the "need" for expansion to even things out. Not only will we will we have Seattle as a western expansion team, I would guess we'll have another one in the West as well. KC anyone?

bluenotekidd wrote:Considering this: with the new alignment, there are obviously 16 teams in the east and 14 teams in the west. Even though Bettmen would deny this, you can bet that this is by design, to facilitate the "need" for expansion to even things out. Not only will we will we have Seattle as a western expansion team, I would guess we'll have another one in the West as well. KC anyone?

I was thinking Portland.

Official Stalker of Paul "Speedy Gonzalez" Kariya2014-2015 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir TarasenkoTWTigerWoodsTW

bluenotekidd wrote:Considering this: with the new alignment, there are obviously 16 teams in the east and 14 teams in the west. Even though Bettmen would deny this, you can bet that this is by design, to facilitate the "need" for expansion to even things out. Not only will we will we have Seattle as a western expansion team, I would guess we'll have another one in the West as well. KC anyone?

Seattle and Portland that's awfully close to each other for two new teams. And Vegas, I don't think, will ever be home to any professional franchise. Maybe Oklahoma City. Not saying I'd agree with it as a location, but it's a viable possibility. They already have the arena, just need to fit it for hockey.